This has happened where I live too. There have been people here who get their third DUI (a felony at that point) and pick up three or four more before their court date.At some point one of them will kill someone and a lot of questions will be asked about what our courts are actually doing.

Also - look, I get it. Booze is fun. Driving is fun. I assume that booze+driving is awesome. Well, for the driver anyway. It sucks for everyone else around you.

I would think that after DUI #3 or so it would be more cost effective just to build a simulator in the basement or something. Get liquored up and drive around without having to worry about all the negative fallout.

All confusion of how he got 14 charged before 13th aside: How the hell did this guy make it to 13 DUIs in the first place? It's as if our legal system is saying "it's required that he kill an innocent person before we can really do anything about it." All these PBR swilling white trash drunk drivers should get one chance, then prison. If they do it again even once after prison, execute them. Damn soft ass legal system today. And I reserve the right to hate drunk drivers since i knew someone who was killed by one.

El Dudereno:This has happened where I live too. There have been people here who get their third DUI (a felony at that point) and pick up three or four more before their court date.At some point one of them will kill someone and a lot of questions will be asked about what our courts are actually doing.

Well, to be fair to them, the American courts are simply overwhelmed. There's far too many crimes and we've given the police quotas. So when real crime happens, it's almost impossible to get to it in time because the docket's full.

Also, to be fair to the drunk drivers, almost every drinker drives drunk routinely if they live outside of a major metropolis. That's more of a function of urban planning and insane laws than anything else. If you live in a place with no public transport, of course you have to drive home. You can die sleeping in your car and bars are forced to close at 2 AM.

The best solution is light rail and taxis. Soon, self driving cars will render DUI a quaint thing of the past. But I'd also consider drunk driving laws more in line with harm reduction rather than MADD's retarded policies.

Maybe we could, between 12 - 5 AM, just let people drive drunk in vehicles that, in the event of an accident, won't hurt other drivers or pedestrians. Anything that can get home but can't cause a fatality if it T-bones a minivan. In the Netherlands, they encourage you to ride a bicycle drunk instead of your car. In America, I think we can do better. I vote for a four-cylinder "Cozy Coupe"

or one of the other micro vehicles you see around the world:

Basically make it so that you can drive it drunk, but you're going to die but no one else is. A simple proposition. A cheap solution to stopgap everything until the car drives itself.

doglover:El Dudereno: This has happened where I live too. There have been people here who get their third DUI (a felony at that point) and pick up three or four more before their court date.At some point one of them will kill someone and a lot of questions will be asked about what our courts are actually doing.

Well, to be fair to them, the American courts are simply overwhelmed. There's far too many crimes and we've given the police quotas. So when real crime happens, it's almost impossible to get to it in time because the docket's full.

Also, to be fair to the drunk drivers, almost every drinker drives drunk routinely if they live outside of a major metropolis. That's more of a function of urban planning and insane laws than anything else. If you live in a place with no public transport, of course you have to drive home. You can die sleeping in your car and bars are forced to close at 2 AM.

The best solution is light rail and taxis. Soon, self driving cars will render DUI a quaint thing of the past. But I'd also consider drunk driving laws more in line with harm reduction rather than MADD's retarded policies.

Maybe we could, between 12 - 5 AM, just let people drive drunk in vehicles that, in the event of an accident, won't hurt other drivers or pedestrians. Anything that can get home but can't cause a fatality if it T-bones a minivan. In the Netherlands, they encourage you to ride a bicycle drunk instead of your car. In America, I think we can do better. I vote for a four-cylinder "Cozy Coupe"

or one of the other micro vehicles you see around the world:

Basically make it so that you can drive it drunk, but you're going to die but no one else is. A simple proposition. A cheap solution to stopgap everything until the car drives itself.

Or, you could just not be a complete idiot and plan your drinking like a civilized adult in order to avoid the need to drive drunk altogether. And just because some drunk thinks its safe to drive in the early AM hours because there are less potential people to hurt or kill, doesn't mean they there won't be people out and about during that time. I've been drinking for almost 10 years now. I've never been in a situation where I need to drive drunk. 3 easy things to do: get a DD, sleep at the place you get drunk, or have the brains to keep some cash handy for a taxi.

You get some guy who has a bunch of weed on him, and lock him up for years. Even though he wasn't hurting anyone.You get a habitual drunken driver, and he does no time. Even though he is an absolute, positive risk to society.

A Tennessee dude, identified as Bob Ray Towry, was allegedly busted in his home state for his 14th DUI last December -- then extradited to Florida to face the music for his 13th DUI charge from 2006 in Manatee County, reports the Bradenton Herald.

Dude, really the best word you could come up with is dude. Guess I should be glad it wasn't bro.And he wasn't allegedly busted his arrest is not a disputed fact his guilt my be alleged but not the arrest. Again, busted. Who wrote this the editors idiot nephew?

/when someone as stupid as me becomes a grammar notsee then it is bad.

Dirty J1:Or, you could just not be a complete idiot and plan your drinking like a civilized adult in order to avoid the need to drive drunk altogether. And just because some drunk thinks its safe to drive in the early AM hours because there are less potential people to hurt or kill, doesn't mean they there won't be people out and about during that time. I've been drinking for almost 10 years now. I've never been in a situation where I need to drive drunk. 3 easy things to do: get a DD, sleep at the place you get drunk, or have the brains to keep some cash handy for a taxi.

Well, aren't you precious? BAC limit is 0.05 here. Before I moved here, I was told (by someone who got a DUI for being t-boned by a sober driver who ran a stop sign) that "everyone has a DUI" here. Well, that's certainly not true, but I'd bet there are a hell of a lot of people who have driven over the limit.

Oh, and you can't get a taxi very easily here either, they don't let me sleep at the bar and the DD is drunk too.

gfid:Dirty J1: Or, you could just not be a complete idiot and plan your drinking like a civilized adult in order to avoid the need to drive drunk altogether. And just because some drunk thinks its safe to drive in the early AM hours because there are less potential people to hurt or kill, doesn't mean they there won't be people out and about during that time. I've been drinking for almost 10 years now. I've never been in a situation where I need to drive drunk. 3 easy things to do: get a DD, sleep at the place you get drunk, or have the brains to keep some cash handy for a taxi.

Well, aren't you precious? BAC limit is 0.05 here. Before I moved here, I was told (by someone who got a DUI for being t-boned by a sober driver who ran a stop sign) that "everyone has a DUI" here. Well, that's certainly not true, but I'd bet there are a hell of a lot of people who have driven over the limit.

Oh, and you can't get a taxi very easily here either, they don't let me sleep at the bar and the DD is drunk too.

/still no DUI myself//usually drink at home

.05? Wow, I bet the cops pretty much let the .2-.4+ types get away if they're wasting their time with the .05 crowd.

"In Tennessee and Georgia, they don't have a law where a fourth or subsequent DUI is a felony," Dusnik said. "It's important to note, all the prior DUIs were misdemeanors so the most he has ever been sentenced to jail has been one year."A sentencing hearing has not yet been set.

State Attorney Dusnik should understand that 4th DUI or subsequent in Tennessee is a felony. Plus the person is almost always adjudged Habitual Motor Vehicle Offender. That makes it a felony whenever the person is driviing drunk or sober. This guy should hope for Tennessee time because service rate is 85% in Florida and only 30% to 35% in Tennessee unless he is a chronic criminal. In any event, he won't be driving for a while.

Because of course, the best way to deal with repeat offenders is to ridicule them on a newspaper blog called "Floriduh." Drunk driving is basically legal. I'm sure the lawyers make more off of it than the state does.

The jurors claim they "got him off the streets" but really all they did was take his license, not his car. Now he's just going to drive without a license, and paid the fine for that on his next DUI. They take your license on the first DUI in Texas. Then people still need a car and just drive without a license. The guy who killed four people and hit 20 at SXSW? Had a previous DUI.

Taking the car should be the penalty on the 2nd DUI.

Dirty J1:Or, you could just not be a complete idiot and plan your drinking like a civilized adult in order to avoid the need to drive drunk altogether. And just because some drunk thinks its safe to drive in the early AM hours because there are less potential people to hurt or kill, doesn't mean they there won't be people out and about during that time. I've been drinking for almost 10 years now. I've never been in a situation where I need to drive drunk. 3 easy things to do: get a DD, sleep at the place you get drunk, or have the brains to keep some cash handy for a taxi.

Firethorn:Sin_City_Superhero: Unless your simulator can get me to the beer store, or Jack-In-The-Box, I see a HUGE flaw in your plan.

I wonder how much of a markup I could put on a beer/liquor delivery service and still have the delivered alcohol be cheaper than the cost of picking it up yourself + DUI Cost*Chance of being caught.

I was going to say most people are social drinkers, so a delivery service would not solve the problem. But looking at this guy.... I somehow doubt he goes out drinking with friends, so he probably could benefit from a "booze to your house" plan.

elchupacabra:I was going to say most people are social drinkers, so a delivery service would not solve the problem.

Certainly not. As you note, the problem is multi-faceted, and more people are caught for DUI going home from the bar than leaving home/returning from a liquor store. Note that I was hypothesizing a delivery service rather than fixing DUIs.

Fixing DUIs? I've had a number of ideas, including banning customer parking at bars. If you have to take a taxi TO the bar, you're unlikely to get a DUI leaving, aren't you. ;)

Perhaps local communities, as part of granting licenses to sell open containers, might require bars to have a 'prevent DUI' plan. Stuff like operating a shuttle service, requiring people who drive in to have a DD who gets free non-alcoholic drinks but isn't allowed alcoholic ones(and the party is kicked out without their keys if the DD does drink), etc...

Ultimately though, I don't think it's a problem that will be solved until self-driving cars renders the whole problem moot.

Ultimately though, I don't think it's a problem that will be solved until self-driving cars renders the whole problem moot.

Self-driving cars won't change things -- at least, not as quickly as it should:

1. That sweet, sweet DUI revenue for the system would go away too fast2. Nanny-staters and Prohibitionists would hate the loss of the threat of DUI to force society to conform3. It's almost certain that even the best Self-Driving cars will have a manual override, so unless the car keeps perfect logs, there'll be the argument that drunks will secretly override the car and DUI.

Ultimately though, I don't think it's a problem that will be solved until self-driving cars renders the whole problem moot.

Self-driving cars won't change things -- at least, not as quickly as it should:

1. That sweet, sweet DUI revenue for the system would go away too fast2. Nanny-staters and Prohibitionists would hate the loss of the threat of DUI to force society to conform3. It's almost certain that even the best Self-Driving cars will have a manual override, so unless the car keeps perfect logs, there'll be the argument that drunks will secretly override the car and DUI.

Yeah I'm with you on the self driving car thing. If they did somehow perfect a self driving car, and made them economically affordable for even the lowest of income families to afford, then maybe many years in the future this will solve the DUI problem. And they'd need to make self driving cars the only street legal cars for this to work as well. And of course this will never happen in my lifetime, mainly because the powers that be will miss their DUI revenues too much.

Ultimately though, I don't think it's a problem that will be solved until self-driving cars renders the whole problem moot.

Self-driving cars won't change things -- at least, not as quickly as it should:

1. That sweet, sweet DUI revenue for the system would go away too fast2. Nanny-staters and Prohibitionists would hate the loss of the threat of DUI to force society to conform3. It's almost certain that even the best Self-Driving cars will have a manual override, so unless the car keeps perfect logs, there'll be the argument that drunks will secretly override the car and DUI.

Yeah I'm with you on the self driving car thing. If they did somehow perfect a self driving car, and made them economically affordable for even the lowest of income families to afford, then maybe many years in the future this will solve the DUI problem. And they'd need to make self driving cars the only street legal cars for this to work as well. And of course this will never happen in my lifetime, mainly because the powers that be will miss their DUI revenues too much.

I would at least think that DUI would be harder to "catch" in a self-driving car; since police supposedly note erratic driving as reason to pull someone over, a self-driving car would eliminate that, except in cases where the occupant is so hammered as to give the car bad instruction, or screw with the manual control.

pueblonative:elchupacabra: Dirty J1: All confusion of how he got 14 charged before 13th aside: How the hell did this guy make it to 13 DUIs in the first place?

No good time frame here, so we don't know if this guy just racked up the charges over a couple of years or what.

This guy must be painfully obvious when DUI -- weaving like crazy or something. Or his drive invariably passes a large number of police.

From the longer article it looks like it's over a decade. Still no excuse though.

Exactly. Let's assume it is over a full decade (you know, a long time). That's still 1.4 DUIs a year. If you don't learn from the first (maybe the second if the first was 0.081), your not going to learn.

elchupacabra:Self-driving cars won't change things -- at least, not as quickly as it should:

You listed delays, which I agree will happen. I certainly didn't put a timeline in my suggestion, though 'a good while' is certainly in there.

I estimate approximately 15 years from when the first self-driving car goes on sale before you have 90% of cars on the road being self-driving, and it'll be another 15 before you hit 98% or so due to classic car drivers.

Right now self-driving cars are '10 years out', so you're looking at 40.

But with all that said, and because of the very revenue thing you mention, I don't see drunk driving being 'solved' before then. At which point the occasional drunk driver in an antique manually controlled vehicle will be more of a news sensation than a 'problem'. Kind of like the guy who converts his bulldozer into an armored vehicle for a rampage. If it's so rare that cops/prosecutors have to research the laws in order to bust somebody, it's not much of a problem.

Firethorn:elchupacabra: Self-driving cars won't change things -- at least, not as quickly as it should:

You listed delays, which I agree will happen. I certainly didn't put a timeline in my suggestion, though 'a good while' is certainly in there.

I estimate approximately 15 years from when the first self-driving car goes on sale before you have 90% of cars on the road being self-driving, and it'll be another 15 before you hit 98% or so due to classic car drivers.

Right now self-driving cars are '10 years out', so you're looking at 40.

But with all that said, and because of the very revenue thing you mention, I don't see drunk driving being 'solved' before then. At which point the occasional drunk driver in an antique manually controlled vehicle will be more of a news sensation than a 'problem'. Kind of like the guy who converts his bulldozer into an armored vehicle for a rampage. If it's so rare that cops/prosecutors have to research the laws in order to bust somebody, it's not much of a problem.

Yea but you forgot the whole piece where these cars are going to be outrageously expensive. Not exactly something like me, or any other low middle class person, could afford. Rich people could get them sure, but the drunk driving epidemic isn't really among the populous of the worlds wealthiest.

Dirty J1:Yea but you forgot the whole piece where these cars are going to be outrageously expensive. Not exactly something like me, or any other low middle class person, could afford. Rich people could get them sure, but the drunk driving epidemic isn't really among the populous of the worlds wealthiest.

1. Outrageously Expensive? Only to start with - luxury car features such as backing cameras are going to be hitting all cars soon. Plus there's a reason I said 15 years. Gives a chance for the technology to trickle down.2. On second thought, it might be 25 years - 12-13 for the feature to become standard on all vehicles, plus another 12-13 for enough cars without the feature to leave the roads(average car age being 11 years, lifespan 13) to reach the 90% level.3. Ever pay attention to the number of super-cars destroyed by crazy drunk drivers? They're the rich types. I'd say that drunk driving is at least as prevalent with the rich.4. I figure the transition to self-driving cars will be hastened by insurance savings. If it saves $500/year in insurance costs, that's $6.5k over the life of the vehicle in savings.